A City of Richmond, B.C., employee’s claim that his employer discriminated against him based on his political beliefs has been dismissed in its entirety by a human rights tribunal.
The decision centred on whether the employee’s opposition to mandatory vaccination policies, as well as his support for union activities, were protected under the law. In the ruling, the tribunal found there was “no reasonable prospect” of proving these beliefs led to adverse treatment in his workplace.
N.D., who works for the City of Richmond and is a member of a union, said he held two core beliefs: “pro-union” views and opposition to employer-imposed vaccination requirements. His complaint argued that both sets of beliefs qualified as political, and that the city treated him poorly because of them.
The city denied the allegations, applying to dismiss the complaint before a hearing, citing several reasons. Among them was the argument that membership in a union is not automatically a political belief. It also contended that any actions taken regarding N.D.’s employment stemmed from routine policies and procedures, including the organization’s social media guidelines and established protocols for medical absences.
Union membership a political belief?
The tribunal agreed to consider whether union membership could sometimes be a political belief but ultimately dismissed that part of the complaint. N.D. had described his pro-union stance as “making sure the collective agreement was followed.”
However, the tribunal determined he did not provide enough information to show why his union activities amounted to political beliefs beyond his own personal interests. N.D. submitted no further details to explain “the nature of the belief at stake” or how it might be “core to a person’s concept of a system of social cooperation.”
Opposition to vaccination policies
N.D. next said his opposition to mandatory vaccination policies rose to a political belief. He cited a Facebook post in which he wrote that the City of Richmond was “pushing a political agenda that aligns with the Federal/Provincial Mandates.” He further argued that these mandates were “becoming punitive, and have no place in the workforce.” In the same post, N.D. criticized what he called the employer’s lack of thoughtful discussion on vaccination rules, adding: “They are playing politics with people’s lives. This has to end right now.”
According to the ruling, N.D. also emailed the CAO to convey disappointment over the vaccination policy. The city said the CAO responded and copied the mayor on that reply, while N.D. deleted the Facebook post soon after. The city insisted that it never disciplined him for airing these views, but it did remind him of the organization’s social media directive and the need to protect its reputation.
Indirect punishment?
N.D. maintained that he was “indirectly punished” for holding anti-mandatory-vaccination views. In particular, he asserted the city denied him a funding request for a supervisory training course because of his stance and questioned his judgment at an investigation meeting.
The tribunal found that while the city had discussed the online post and N.D.’s email to the CAO, the employer’s concerns focused on what it called “poor judgement” rather than his broader beliefs. The city said it had a legitimate reason to worry about social media postings that could harm its reputation, pointing to internal notes that flagged the “inappropriate” tone N.D. used in written communications.
The tribunal examined the denial of training funding, weighing whether there was evidence connecting N.D.’s beliefs to that decision.
An internal email revealed the manager said N.D. should “concentrate on his job” and “demonstrate that he can exercise good judgment,” including appropriate communication with senior management and adherence to workplace policies.
The tribunal determined the denial was “a reasonable decision based on established policies,” partly because N.D.’s role did not require supervisory skills and partly because the employer had concerns about his workplace conduct and communication.
Ottawa protest
Separately, N.D. claimed that, before he travelled to a protest in Ottawa, his manager told him that the City of Richmond would be “monitoring his social media accounts.” The city denied having advance knowledge of N.D.’s travel plans and suggested he was mixing up the timeline of conversations about his social media usage.
The tribunal noted a conflict in the evidence but concluded there was insufficient information to link any monitoring threat to N.D.’s political beliefs, as opposed to the social media directives the city enforced for all staff.
Back injury
N.D. also raised issues concerning medical absences around his back injury. He claimed the city continued to ask for back-related medical documentation even after he tested positive for COVID-19. The city responded that it had existing policies requiring clearance after workplace injuries, adding it never requested a note related to COVID-19 itself. The tribunal found nothing to suggest these requests related to a political stance on vaccination.
Late in the proceedings, N.D. introduced new allegations that he did not initially raise, alleging the City of Richmond delayed providing him with an ergonomic chair and prevented him from returning to work quickly after a serious medical diagnosis. However, the tribunal declined to consider those claims, citing rules against adding new complaints during an active dismissal application. It characterized the fresh issues as disability-related rather than connected to N.D.’s beliefs on unionism or vaccination mandates.
Opposition to mandatory vaccination policies ‘could’ qualify as political belief
In the end, the tribunal accepted that opposition to mandatory vaccination policies “could be a political belief.” Still, it held that N.D. had not established a clear link between his beliefs and any “adverse treatment” at work.
His complaint about pro-union beliefs did not move forward due to an insufficient factual basis. Although N.D. had pointed to specific incidents — such as being questioned in a meeting, denied certain training, and cautioned about social media use — the tribunal credited the city’s explanations that each stemmed from either medical or social media policies.
For more information, see Duarte v. City of Richmond, 2024 BCHRT 347
